|
I am confused... what worked with 1109 (support of RX550) does not work with the last version... simpleminer, please, let me set my version myself or solve this issue or you make me to leave
|
|
|
|
|
would you please prepare dd image versions for R and NV miners?
|
|
|
|
mining now with sapphire rx 550 4gb something like 7-8MHs eth, stock settings /zec 70, xmr 250/
since claymore version 9.7 mining 10+Mhs with sapphire rx 550 /mode 1 - single mode/ |
|
|
|
|
mining now with sapphire rx 550 4gb something like 7-8MHs eth, stock settings /zec 70, xmr 250/
|
|
|
|
linux version?
1st page: There are builds for Windows x64 only. No Linux. No 32-bit support. No NVidia support. you are so kind, thank you, I can read  but what I would welcome is linux version instead of to buy windows os as you did for sure |
|
|
|
a shame so little hash power on p2pool
Indeed - & my server just suffered a catastrophic failure & went down. I'm not sure if it's the mobo or SSD yet, looks like my Sunday will be spent knee-deep in parts while I search for the problem. Great!  Been back online after replacing a fried mobo for a couple of days now  I decided to pull the latest Bitcoin version from git instead of using the v11.2 - what a difference! My Bitcoind GetBlockTemplate Latency has dropped dramatically from ~1-2.5 secs back down to a steady 0.25 secs using the same conf file as v11.2. Whatever they fixed - it works a treat Highly recommend the latest version from git to eveyone. {
"version": 129900,
"protocolversion": 70012,
"blocks": 395494,
"timeoffset": 2,
"connections": 14,
"proxy": "",
"difficulty": 120033340651.237,
"testnet": false,
"paytxfee": 0.00000000,
"relayfee": 0.00001000,
"errors": "This is a pre-release test build - use at your own risk - do not use for mining or merchant applications, blah, blah......"
}
agree the same here |
|
|
|
why do we have so low hashrate on p2pool , dont get it why most dont want to mine whit it ? . p2pool is a good thing
P2pool is not only a good thing, it's a great thing, it's really what Bitcoin is all about. I think the main reason more people don't use it is because it's not as user friendly as simply pointing your miners to kano.is, for example. There are lots of extra steps to take, and granted many bitcoiners know more about the ins and outs of computing than the general public, a lot of what p2pool needs to get up and running is beyond the grasp of even your average bitcoiner. exactly sad thing is that the future of p2pool depends on other pool operators if they decide to keep it alive or not because fellow miner does not have such power, what an irony? in origional bitcoin was solo mining the only way to mine and also it was designed to be fair, but with growing difficulty solo mining is no more way to mine and absolutely not fair way, fair way, decentralised mining done thru p2pool was destroyed by its own sofisticated design and greed of node operators (a little less fellow miners than fellow miners) if p2pool mining mechanism was implemented in core it would still allow fellow miner to grab some coins but the condition to own server and linux ability to tune pypy and compile git bitcoind and and and and ... are not the way interesting enough counter easy pooled mining |
|
|
|
why do we have so low hashrate on p2pool , dont get it why most dont want to mine whit it ? . p2pool is a good thing
if p2pool was good thing, miners would not let it die but used it P2pool it's not die, p2pool it's good but the miners must be informed why is p2pool a bad thing ? it is not question for its users but for them who are NOT using it |
|
|
|
why do we have so low hashrate on p2pool , dont get it why most dont want to mine whit it ? . p2pool is a good thing
if p2pool was good thing, miners would not let it die but used it P2pool it's not die, p2pool it's good but the miners must be informed punk is not death! |
|
|
|
why do we have so low hashrate on p2pool , dont get it why most dont want to mine whit it ? . p2pool is a good thing
if p2pool was good thing, miners would not let it die but used it |
|
|
|
|
if there was bitcoin fork with p2pool mining system implemented, would any little miner think about to mine with pools?
|
|
|
|
if anybody interested to mine in central Europe, Czech republic, there is a node http://185.73.103.2:9332/fee 0.9%, author donation 0.1% johndoe stats @ http://185.73.103.2:9332/static/jd/plans to add spare hw to backup it using load balancing tools to backup it via another independent internet connection to build website @ sexy domain name |
|
|
|
Still concerned about the number of connections being low. Any thoughts on how to encourage more of them?
Welcome! Be sure port 9333 is open for inbound connections, if it already is be patient... The inbound peers will come As an aside, 256 is an insanely high number of peers, not much benefit from that many peers... We limit our node to 35, 25 inbound and 10 out... Thanks. Somehow I missed that port reference from the guide I was using to install. I had 9332 open, but not 9333. It is now opened and dnatted to my p2pool VM. Not sure it matters but I'll restart the p2pool just to be safe. I'll drop max connections some while its down. you do not need to bind with every existing node. I run my node satisfied with 3 out 1 in connections and relaynode by Matt. I use github bitcoind with no conf change with <0.2s gbt latency (0.165s daily average just now, monthly average 0.188s) and github p2pool 15.0-11 keeping both in last version. |
|
|
|
|
hypotethical question
if kano used his pool to mine with p2pool as a node, would it be more efficient mining fot his pool or not?
|
|
|
|
|
if connections thru 9333 were compressed, would it make sharing the chain faster?
or if there was added 9334 compressed as an alternative for 9333...
|
|
|
|
We're aware of that. This is an experiment on improving node performance for multiple miners.
Sure I got this. Another solution (or almost the same?) is also ckpool based, this may be not so elegant as yours but looks like it may work. One guy asked me about how to configure ckpool in proxy mode for multiple users to deal with p2pool network. As these users do not want to install and have Core wallet but they use online wallets which not accepts generated transactions. So in this test enviroment ckpool works like a gateway and uses the single connection from ckproxy to p2pool network and single worker (payout address). Is this the same what you doing? In this case original Payout module and pplns_process() calculations of ckpool will be useless for this exact case (p2pool) and it need to be rewritten because ckpool will never know about solved p2pool Block and payouts will be never calculated based on received payout from p2pool network to specified address. But in case of single node owner with multiple miners (own devices) payout is not a problem. For different miners (persons) ckpool still can be adopted for completely another payment module and another Block detection mechanism. PS: I do not ask you to do it for sure, just told it is possible if someone need this solution. So.. This is local node w/ bitcoind, p2pool and ckpool on the same server, it is running well with no DOA shares for now and I am pretty sure only because this is LOCAL node but not remote. I still do not have statistics for long period but for 12 hours now and just 2 workers but maybe it doesn't as soon as ckproxy running well . I have made conclusion for some time of using p2pool that it is necessary to have own local node with the shortest round trip delay, in this case DOA hashrate and DOA shares are minimal. Another issue is GBT latency but this is not related to this particular task.    does it mean that the best ever would be p2pool was mining to just one address and then as coins mature it would be redistributed? is not this what nasty is doing? if there was different payout mechanism implemented in p2pool it would probably solve a lot but we will hear again that it is way to lose control. so... |
|
|
|
Local rate: 1.49TH/s (7.8% DOA) Expected time to share: 53.7 minutes
Shares: 2 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 120.0%
Actually 53 minutes and 2 'live' shares are not enough for statistics. For the best p2pool performance it is much better to run own local node near your miners, here is example:  This was private node with 100% fee for testing purposes. Lower miners qty per one node works much better also. The same node with remote miners with good connectivity and ping below 40ms give you also quite a lot of DOA hashrate about ~10% and more DOA shares also. But I never tried p2pool w/ ckproxy.. I think this kind of design issue.. version 14? |
|
|
|
Here's what I used: #p2pool uses twisted, and twisted uses zope.interface, and in order to install either one you need setuptools, so let's start with that:
wget https://bootstrap.pypa.io/ez_setup.py -O - | sudo pypy
sudo rm setuptools-18.3.2.zip
#Then zope.interface:
wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/z/zope.interface/zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz#md5=9ae3d24c0c7415deb249dd1a132f0f79
tar zxf zope.interface-4.1.3.tar.gz
cd zope.interface-4.1.3/
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r zope.interface-4.1.3*
#Then Twisted:
wget https://pypi.python.org/packages/source/T/Twisted/Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
tar jxf Twisted-15.4.0.tar.bz2
cd Twisted-15.4.0
sudo pypy setup.py install
cd ..
sudo rm -r Twisted-15.4.0* Hope you got loads of RAM, cos it sucks the living daylights out of it Thanks for that, firing it up now. It's an 8GB VPS. much better now Local rate: 1.49TH/s (7.8% DOA) Expected time to share: 53.7 minutes Shares: 2 total (0 orphaned, 0 dead) Efficiency: 120.0% |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
